Stunning images show F-35B jets and Merlin helicopters packed into the hangar of aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The vessel tweeted the following images showing F-35Bs and Merlin helicopters in the hangar.

The images are shown below.

Image Crown Copyright 2021.

Now the Merlins, note the Crowsnest radar pods. You can read more about these aircraft at the excellent NavyLookout website here.

Image Crown Copyright 2021.

The hangar can hold around 24 aircraft.

HMS Queen Elizabeth hangar size. [2047 x 977] : WarshipPorn

The vessel is currently carrying around 18 F-35Bs plus a number of Merlin helicopters.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group recently arrived in Scotland for a major multinational exercise. The Royal Navy say that Exercise Strike Warrior involves more than 20 warships, three submarines and 150 aircraft from 11 nations and is a final test for the Carrier Strike Group ahead of its first operational deployment to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Asia Pacific.

“The exercise, which will run for two weeks, will see the task group pitted against warships from NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 1 in waters off north-west Scotland to prove it is capable of undertaking high intensity operations against the most demanding adversaries. The culmination of Strike Warrior will see the Carrier Strike Group certified ready for deployment, at which point operational command will pass from the Royal Navy’s Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Jerry Kyd, to the Chief of Joint Operations, Vice Admiral Sir Ben Key.”

Commodore Steve Moorhouse, Commander UK Carrier Strike Group, said:

“The new UK Carrier Strike Group is the embodiment of British maritime power, and sits at the heart of a modernised and emboldened Royal Navy. Protected by a ring of advanced destroyers, frigates, helicopters and submarines, and equipped with fifth generation fighters, HMS Queen Elizabeth is able to strike from the sea at a time and place of our choosing; and with our NATO allies at our side, we will be ready to fight and win in the most demanding circumstances. Carrier Strike offers Britain choice and flexibility on the global stage; it reassures our friends and allies and presents a powerful deterrent to would-be adversaries.”

The aircraft carriers jets have been busy too.

HMS Queen Elizabeth F-35s fire missiles off Scottish coast

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

66 COMMENTS

    • Sorry to post a reply to your question here, Hope it doesn’t get Flagged again ! But, It’s always been at that level from the finalised design. But It depends on the type of aircraft embarked as the F35 B’s are a different size to something like Apache or Chinook so in theory we could squeeze a few more in ……. Oh and if we ever had a “Sea Gnat” , There’s room for at least 100 and a Mezzanine for another 100 probably. 😃Hope you are well mate.

    • Hi there Herodotus, this comment should serve as a warning. Be civil and respectful here or don’t be here.

    • I’m with you on that, I think once they have finished the round the world deployment they’ll be able to squeeze a few more in…..

    • I used to fly light aircraft and watching the ground handlers pack the hangar at the end of the day is quite a lesson of how to get a quart into a pint pot! I would suggest that that packing illustration (best I’ve seen online and very interesting) shows a typical ‘optimal’ packing.

      If you look carefully there is a very clear pattern to it, given away by the 4 sets of 3 aircraft. One at each end of the hangar and two mid-ships. I.e. the highest density is furtherest away from the lifts. The layout is probably designed to generate the best possible sortie rate with minimum hangar / lift / deck movements. Entirely consistant with the new focus on sortie generation than on numbers of aircraft.

      Cheers CR

      • Bit of a nightmare when trying to access the aircraft you need when you want! I guess it’s like partially unpacking a suitcase…..a lot of aircraft will have to be kept on deck and rotated during maintenance. I was interested in your light aircraft hanger comments. Do they partially unpack the hanger to allow access to all aircraft or is it arranged on a booking basis…ie can my aircraft be accessed tomorrow?

        • Hi Herodotus,

          As the customer they’ll sort you out, but it is considered bad manners not to give them warning a couple of days prior to you wanting to fly, especially if you haven’t flown for a while as your plane will have naturally migrated to the back of the hangar. So simple answer you can always get to your plane, but you might have to stand around for a while if the team is busy and you wouldn’t be the most popular person in the world… 🙂

          Going back to the carrier. You are right that maintenance is also an issue. Some of the WW2 era carriers had two hangars, a smaller maintenance hangar below the main one. However, on the QE class (and I think all modern carriers) maintenance is done in the main hangar, the reason being the height needed for modern aircraft requires a very high deck clearance, so not feasible to have two hangars one above the other. That would suggest stuffing the damaged aircraft or those requiring maintenance to the back of the hangar out of the way.

          Looking at the diagram it would seem that the hangar is in effect operated like two in one. You can see that by the way the 4 sets of three aircraft are ranged, as far from the lifts as possible. Those aircraft would require care as you could easily damage two in one accidental knock, so they would be slow to move. If you needed one that was not right at the front for some reason (engine test perhaps) you may only need to move one to the flightdeck and then shuffle things around in the hangar. There certainly appears to be enough space looking at that image. Which suggests that there is also plenty of space to squeeze more aircraft in if you needed to, although the only operational reason I can think of is if one carrier is transporting replacement / additional aircraft to its sister as overloading the hangar will significantly slow down the sortie generation rate.

          That picture is very interesting.

          Cheers CR

          • Thanks for that lengthy and informative reply Chariot. It sets the standard that should be adopted by others that claim to know….but possibly don’t 🙂

          • You are welcome mate. Although I should hasten to say I have never served and my answer is based on flying light aircraft.

            I was in the department where the assessment of the orginal designs proposals for the carriers were assessed, although not directly involved. Aircraft movements was a key variable obviously.

            Cheers CR

          • No Sarcasm at all, It’s how I interpret his Comment based upon the picture in the article above. It’s an amazing achievement and seeing 5th generation F35’s aboard such a fantastic Royal Navy Aircraft Carrier is Borderline Surreal. The Smiley face is a friendly addition I chose from the set you have provided. Sorry If you found my comment/reply sarcastic George.

          • its not sarcasm – its fascinating and mind-boggling. Which stowage positions allow for major maintenance such as an engine change?

  3. I think, gentlemen, you should keep on the topic, and not waste time on punctuation. It will be interesting to see the hangar in two months time when I suspect that there will be fewer packing cases in evidence, since they will have been used or stowed. I don’t think that the ships were designed to hangar all of the forty aircraft postulated in the original design spec anyway.
    And if you talk to anyone who has served in a previous generation of carriers they will tell you that you can shoehorn a heck of a lot of airframes into a very small space when you are pushed. The main point is that, as has been pointed out, the ship is at sea with a decent sized air group embarked, and is going to be learning a heck of a lot about how to make it work over the next several months. The fact that ship is operating with allies embarked, and they are learning at the same time, is a huge plus. Only a naysayer with a simplistic outlook could consider this negatively.

    • Hi Jonathan, looking at that diagram, I sure would have liked a phalanx on each corner. I know there’s overlap but if one of the three goes bung there could be some vulnerabilities.

      Does anyone have any news if there’ll be any additional defensive armament added, RWS or shorad missiles? Are there any non-aircraft/helo ASW/torpedo systems on these carriers? It’s so big I can’t see on any photos.

      • Errr…Ships can change course and do to open up firing arcs and to present the best profile for defence against ASMs.
        So if you lose a system you alter course to bring the other mounts into play. As all of the mounts talk to each other, conduct threat evaluation and allocate threats between themselves losing one mount is not a disaster…just very very annoying!

  7. The biggest single takeaway from those pictures for me is that three of the Merlins have got the Crowsnest kit fitted. Or the bag, at least.

  8. Some minds will be mulling over the Med deployment as the Israel / Palestinian conflict intensifies? Would it be wise to sail the Carrier Strike Group through the canal at this critical moment? The current conflict could go in several directions and pose no real problems, but the MOD may need to make alternative plans if the conflict involves other neighbouring states?

    • Good point Maurice. One to watch. I’m sure the MOD will not put the carrier in harm’s way

    • Easiest way to embarrass us would be to run a huge container ship into the canal bank. Could never happen though 🙂

    • The only other route would be down and around the Cape, which would probably add another 3-4 weeks transit, assuming they are sailing at an economical speed, say 12-15 knots.

  10. Now, if USMC have different stores to RAF / RN those packing cases are going to be fun and of course, it will take genuine trust between nations for the sailors to learn to work together, two nations, upto 7 different services also having to work together.

    On the other hand, sure the US personnel will enjoy the ‘wet’ facilities of this carrier 😉

    Good luck to all and God Speed.

    • Hi David, I hope there’s no DG in them crates! I assume that actual weapons are safe and sound somewhere else?

      • Anything with bang in it will be carrying an Orange Haz label with the Explosive grouping on it. It will also be stowed under 2 locks and keys in the magazines or ready use lockers. Even the pilots life jacket gets locked up because it has mini flares in it so its a Pyrotechnic hazard.

        The rules and regs for the safe stowage and movement of explosive stores on RN vessels are extensive. BR 862 refers or the previous version which is available in all good google searches, JSP 862 is around.

        As an ex- Officer of the Quarter, OOQ, responsible for a number of magazines both at sea and ashore you dont deviate from the regs…ever…
        Explosives are safe until you forget they are dangerous.

    • You would hope that the often mentioned ‘Automated Weapons Handling System’ on the QE’s is compatible with all UK and US Munitions.

      • Well, yeah, but, no, but the US have FAR more systems available to them and fitted with and for…

        So perhaps, QEC will need to come up to speed on that issue.

      • Im pretty sure that they are, its a munitions handling system and the USMC has been training with the RN and QEC ships to use this for a few years now.

        • I read an article recently on a US website about their people who were deploying. A USN ordinance specialist was saying about the differences between the USN and RN systems. The USN assembles its weapons in the main magazine, whereas the RN has seperate weapon preparation areas. Which might not sound that significant, but I suspect it makes a lot of difference to work practices.

          Cheers CR

      • Thanks SR, maybe I did not explain myself correctly, the question should have been is there any technical reason why a F35B could not have folding wings like the C does. For example extra stress on wing loading due to Vertical landing. I also keep asking myself the question would it be possible to fit the B with the larger wings of the C. I know or understand that it would take some frame changies but again is it technically possible. If so I can see it as a good way to increase lift thereby increasing range or load out.

        • Hi Ron. I guess the first answer would be a weight issue. Introducing a lot of extra systems and structural bits onto an aircraft that has already exchanged significant payload/range in favour of the STOVL setup. My second concern (only guessing here) would be that you might further eat into the fuel capacity? My third consideration would be that you would have to insert the fold outboard of the lateral roll control jet efflux vents, so you wouldn’t be saving a lot of footprint for all the extra complexity, weight, cost, maintenance penalties. As for putting the C wings onto the B, I guess in theory anything is possible, but again, huge re-engineering and flight qualification costs, not to mention you’d have to engineer the lateral control jets into the C’s wing box. Finally, would the lift system be able to land the bigger/heavier plane vertically within the normal safety margin/envelope? In conclusion, all big mountains to climb for questionable returns, I guess.

        • Hi Ron. Adding the C’s wings would only increase weight and drag. It can’t carry any extra stores under the wings. The F35C has larger wings to improve it’s slow speed handling for carrier landings. The F35B lands vertically, or can carry out a running landing using it’s STVOL mode to handle the speed and lift.

        • In terms of having wing fold in the existing wing, it is probably technically possible but the necessary structure would increase weight and if they keep fuel in the wing (a quick Google suggest they do) then you may well end up reducing capacity and hence reducing range.

          Assuming you could engineer the bigger wings to fit and include the roll jets etc, they wouldn’t necessarily give you any benefit. They would significantly increase weight for an increase in lift you probably don’t need at higher flight speed while potentially making the aircraft too heavy for the vertical take off and landing profile. Range would only increase if fuel capacity is sufficiently increased to offset the weight and drag increase of the larger wing. I would assume that the wing has been optimised to match the general role and performance requirement for the B model and am happy to defer to the designers in this.

    • Curse you and your inquisitiveness, you’ve forced an extension to my tea break and thus delayed me submitting some work reports…
      I went looking, and apparently the F-35B has roll post nozzles in the wings. These are fed via pipes from the main lift fan and direct air downwards during vertical ops to provide downwards lift. They’re placed as far outboard as possible to maximise stability. Because of this, I don’t think they have enough room in the wing to fit the mechanics for folding the wing tips as well.
      https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/webt/F-35_Air_Vehicle_Technology_Overview.pdf

  12. Those images certainly look impressive and give a very good impression of just how complex and busy an aircraft carrier is.

    Having said that I do find the presence of all those wooden crates on the hangar deck somewhat disconcerting. That represents a lot combustable material and potential shrapnel should some anti-social numpty with an anti-shipping missile happen to stick one through the hangar hall.

    I am hoping that this might be due to the fact that the carrier is at IOC rather than FOC so everyone is still learning and that it is early days in a long deployment so still lots of sorting out to do. Whatever the reason I do hope that most of that lot gets stashed safely below somewhere…

    Cheers CR

    • That amount of stores in the hangar is pretty normal. Racks around the hangar will also make room for more kit. Aircraft need a huge amount of spares to be able to operate for many months away from home. Ground equipment also takes up a lot of room. Everything is lashed to the deck, and the hangar deck Aircraft Handlers carry out hourly hangar rounds 24hr to make sure everything is safe. Hangar deck fire drills also take place very regularly.

  13. Soooo… let me see,thats at least 6 F35B’s, 3 Crowsnest Merlins, 1 Merlin Mk2, a couple of PW F135 engines, 4 F35 mission simulators (2 per container) and a lot of other stores…and it still looks like there is enough room to work around the aircraft. Oh and another 12 f35B’s on deck plus a couple more Merlins. That a serious level of capability after 4 years of hard work to get the carriers into service after QE first left Rosyth. PWLS is back at sea, (6?) more F35Bs due this year, Crowsnest is finally being given its shakedown, HMS Glasgow should be afloat late next month, Steel cut for the first Type 31 due in the Autumn…Lots still to do and lots to learn about how to develop and deploy these capabilities but everyone should realise what this is and also note the many positive comments coming from the US saying that they really appreciate the links to the RN now. https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/us-uk-relationship-strengthened-by-csg21-deployment.html

    • Couldn’t agree more, all very encouraging.

      I also see we are deploying an amphib force this summer as well. The Royal Navy is certainly working bloody hard at the moment. Well done one and all.

      Cheers CR

  14. All the RAF/FAA airframes in the sheltered hangar – all the USMC ones out on deck getting salty 😂

    It’s all part of the long service planning for the UK MoD…

  15. Great photos!
    Anticipating criticism about “that’s not many aircraft to fit below decks”; this is actually about as many as fit in the hangar space of a Nimitz class carrier (according to a lazy Google search). Not sure how much maintenance can be done when they’re packed like that, but it’s not a small space, even by comparison with other nations’ vessels.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here